Umm, actually it did. The solution to a problem is to first acknowledge it. The problem is being an asshole that can’t let a day go by without rubbing something in.

The YouTube problem? For me it’s not a problem any more than anything else price-related. It’s interesting to see who is affected by the change and whether it impacts actual customers. What’s not interesting is seeing a long string of whinging and schadenfreude from people who strongly believe that it’s wrong to pay for services and who have not spent a cent on this. That’s ok, believe what you want, but don’t be an asshole about it.

So you’re openly hating on people for being normal, without offering a single alternative of a video platform that’s not all of those things that you labeled as evil.

There are alternatives, they’ve been posted many times over in this thread and similar ones.

The alternative to shopping isn’t shoplifting. The usual things that people list are client side apps that circumvent intended operation of the platform, reaping as many benefits without paying the cost. But hosting isn’t free. Running a business isn’t free. And hating the people who literally subsidize your unauthorized use of the platform is hypocrisy.

It’s not fair to pay money for services to a company involved in unrelated lawsuits? Does the antitrust investigation negate the expenses associated with running the operation of serving you content?

Are all competitors dead? You can switch to watching TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, for random user generated content. You can go to nebula if you want YouTube style documentaries. You can go to any movie platform if you want to watch random stuff. They are all either in the red, backed by VC, waiting to do the same thing, or serving aggressive ads, or selling your data, or costing money.

How much people are willing to pay is irrelevant in the context of fairness. Fairness is about a company breaking even. Customer readiness is however relevant to business, and in this case I’m afraid that the evidence is against you - after countless similar complaints in the past, people haven’t left the platform, and people have signed up to pay.

Paying for services is normal. It’s unrealistic not to. It’s unproductive to pretend otherwise.

Because it costs nothing to run data centers, employ thousands of people, distribute exabytes of data.

Do you feel better after making fun of people who use other devices and not just a smartphone and browser? There are a hundred news that aren’t your problem and you don’t comment there, but you make sure to come in here and “rub it in” to people who care about this, by not providing an actual solution.

Very noble.

Convenience and performance.

I’m a dual user of Firefox and Brave on different computers. In order to separate work and personal stuff and shopping, I use different profiles. Easy on brave, needs extension with separate app on Firefox, that doesn’t work on librewolf. And too often I have to stop my browsing because this Firefox setup is less stable and crashes once in a while causing annoyance.

Plus Chromecast. I like the ability to search for a video on the laptop and cast it to the TV.

It’s always a balance of convenience and privacy plus ethics, can’t have both.

Xbrowsersync extension will make it easy to sync bookmarks across multiple browsers on multiple platforms. It’s open source and you can self host it if you want. This for me makes it easy to combine Firefox with brave and similar. Only Vivaldi doesn’t support it.

Hope this makes your browser switching easier and cross platform choices simpler.

Yes. But. Not sexual nudity. Nudity is fine in itself, but the fact that most people see it as sexually explicit, sexually suggestive, or an actual sexual activity, is the problem. Consciously I am for this, but subconsciously I’d still react to nudity as sexual (as most other people), because I’ve not yet encountered enough non-sexual nudity to get used to it. It’s like going to a beach - at first it’s “niiice sexy bodies”, but on the second day it’s like “meh, people making it hard to get to the water”. It’s the novelty.

Wear whatever the hell you want, right? Screw genders and made up rules around them.

So you know that there’s places where you don’t exist? It’s called everywhere else, but unfortunately I’m stuck with a dishonest person who keeps on spewing fallacies.

Then your problem is the judicial system, isn’t it?

So how is the police supposed to stop murderers who threaten to murder them? Care to elaborate your ultimate wisdom?

Well it’s good that you care. It’s the multitude of opinions and open discussion, what makes a democracy work.

Unfortunately we have siloes of opinions, so you’re pretty much either trying to yell in an echo chamber or at best, argue with a moderate like me. The moment you’re faced with the people leaning right, some of the rhetoric might be scary for them, and they might retract further into their own silo, where more and more extremist views are tolerated.

The key to a functioning society, is moderation in enforcement of law (so that the state continues to be the only one who is able to, and expected to exert force), and understanding of each other so that it remains an open dialog.

I’m originally from a country where society has degraded into 2 irreconcilable camps, and it got to the point where I can’t even stand my own parents because their echo chambers had lead them to extreme extremes. And I’m not the only one.

Right now what is paramount is a government that optimizes social well-being (think Finland), and the enforcement of those laws, because everyone from Putin (and the general club of autocrats) to fundamentalist fascists everywhere else, want to destabilize that right now. A prosperous democracy is a threat to all of them. Whether you like it or not, we are in the middle of an ideological war.

When other people murder far more people, is the police just supposed to watch it happen?

Is there an end to your naive idealism?

Keep in mind that privacy is really a recent concept. Human societies never had privacy before the industrial revolution. Everybody knew everybody else and what they were doing. I do want my privacy, but modern technology makes it too easy to create and grow any organization that can rival the state in power. While we do have the power to influence and control the state, we have no power over competing organizations that act like authoritarian states.

There needs to be a balance, an amount of power that the state can exercise, that’s just right for keeping it as a monopoly on violence. Absolute privacy, where the state has transparency, is taking away all the power and advantages from the state and gives them to whoever wants to challenge that state.

In other words, nuance.

I get your opinion but you have to account for the fact that it’s not Le Pen who’s in the chair. And France is actually ranked quite high on the civil liberties. While I get your perspective, I believe that it’s exaggerated.

No. They don’t grant police that power. The judicial system has that power. Just like it has the power to imprison people.

Read the article. Title is clickbait. It’s only with approval from a judge. You know, alternatively they could just arrest and imprison the person, which is what every country is doing. Not saying it’s without worrying, but there’s important nuance that most are missing.

P.S.

Absolute extremist attitudes like “nobody should be able” and so on, have absolutely no place in modern society. There’s always nuance. Libertarianism doesn’t work, and laws must be enforced. It sucks, but when there are forces that want to hurt people and destabilize societies, you can’t go by the rule that everyone is a saint. The world will punish this attitude.

Yes, the world isn’t perfect, but for ducks sake, quit sensationalizing anecdotes and representing them as “this always happens”. That’s dishonest.

And that is actually illegal in the EU

I explicitly said that I’m all for justice. You are being dishonest with your last statement, which is an emotional reaction that is completely unnecessary. Cool down.

So if your sources are correct, then when comparing the organization that should have the monopoly on violence, to how much violence they enact, it’s 15%,… it’s kinda dumb, isn’t it? It’s dumb to expect the organization with the monopoly on violence to enact an order of magnitude less violence than the “competitors”.